You can always go to bobistheoilguy website and become more informed or confused with third party info that can be good or bad depending on your personal preferences and choices since oil debates includes filters with everyone having an opinion. Or just buy what you feel comfortable with and change oil and filters on a regular basis. No one goes wrong even with cheap oil and filters every 3k miles as one extreme. The other is a $20k oil change on Bugattis with as many as a dozen oil drain holes........

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Rate the quality of this post and help fdryer reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!

This is a Fram Ultra XG7317 with 24,362 miles using 3- OCI's of early 2015 vintage PYB 5w-20 conventional motor oil.
From a 2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport AWD 2L CVT with no makeup oil through the process. Most driving is highway-rural.
I put it on with my hands only and I have a death grip but it spun off by hand as well with minimum effort and I am super impressed with this combo. The CUV was smooth as silk and the adbv was very pliable. The picture angle makes it look distorted but it isn't- looks nearly new. The can outside was ragged off as it was rather loaded up with soot and I use only an oil extraction device with all oil changes on this car.

I buy way too many filters and oil as a hobby but on this my mothers car I'm going right back to the same products.
I could easily see this doing 30K miles or more. Right now IMHO the Ultra is King.

Here is a PREMIUM GUARD FILTER WITH A METAL
SPRING

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Rate the quality of this post and help Packard reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!

The NAPA Filter has larger holes, allowing for less restriction (NAPA on left):mobil 1 on rightThe NAPA has a unique anti drain valve, as its an "All in one" unit:
The NAPA Gold has 210 sq. in. of paper/cardboard filter media:

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Rate the quality of this post and help Packard reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!

The filtration testing gave much more conclusive results though. The data collected shows a clear benefit to some filters over others. Basically, what we are looking at is the measurement of the contaminants that are both captured by the air filter, ideally this will be as much as possible. We’re also looking at the amount of the contaminant that the air filter allows to be passed through the media and is then captured by the lab filter paper, ideally this value will be as small as possible. When we organize this data as a percentage of contaminant that passed through the air filters, the filters that are more efficient will result in a lower percentage (low contaminant passed), as you can see from this graph which shows the best filtering filters on the left, and the worst on the right.

You can see a huge variance between the filtration ability of the filters with the Amsoil doing exceptionally well, as well as the Napa, Wix, and others doing very well also, you’ll also see some doing poorly like the K&N, and Trueflow foam filter.

Note: The procedure for introducing the contaminant by aerosolizing it does result in a loss of some of the introduced contaminant, for example, some of it doesn’t get pulled into the vacuum of the filter airflow, etc. The average contaminant that was introduced to each filter was 6.509g, with the average lost contaminant being approx 1.2 g, this lost contaminant is not ideal, however when dealing with aerosolized particles, under the control we have, it is unavoidable. Keep in mind, this lost contaminant was removed from the calculations for each of the percentages in the previous graph, so that data contains only the relevant contaminant data.

The following graph shows the different amounts of contaminant collected, which shows the variation in the blue line resulting from the lost contaminant, as well as the trends, organized the same as the percentages graph above. You can see that the trend lines for both the contaminant passed, as well as the contaminant stopped, are converging at a very similar rate (slopes of the trend lines). These trends show that the amount of captured contaminant is related to the amount of contaminant passed, which is what we would expect to see, the more contaminant is let through the media, obviously the more will be collected on the lab filter paper, which back up the study results.
One thing worth noting on here is in the difference of media. There was a wide variety tested, from fiber, synthetic fiber, gause, and foam. There were also oiled and dry variations of these medias as well. One thing I thought was interesting is that all the oiled media filters, regardless of what the media type was, performed worse than the dry filters. In fact, the last 4 filters on the chart, the pure one, fram, K&N, and Trueflow, are all of the oiled filters, the rest are all dry versions of various media materials. While with only a small sample size, we can't say that all oiled filters are worse than dry filters, but from the data we saw, it is worth noting their placement.

Conclusion

My conclusion from all of this is to choose your filters based on filtration ability and cost, and not to expect a performance benefit from one filter brand to the next. We received a bit of feedback from the oil filter study about including the filter prices in our price to performance comparison, since prices can vary based on location and other factors. So for this study we are not comparing the price that we obtained them at, so you will have to take the data we have collected, and compare prices that you have available to you to make your own decision about value and price vs. performance.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Rate the quality of this post and help Packard reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!

The Four Ball Wear Test puts one rotating ½-inch diameter steel ball against three fixed ½-inch diameter steel balls, which are covered with the test lubricant, under specific conditions of pressure, temperature, revolutions per minute and duration. (To better differentiate between lubricants, the severity of this test was increased with higher rpm and temperature). Wear scars are then measured and averaged; the size of the scar determines the amount of wear protection the lubricant provides.

What It Means
The smaller the wear scar, the better the protection.

Extends engine life
Major repairs are often reduced
Reduced downtime and maintenance expense

otal Base Number (TBN) is the measure of a lubricant’s reserve alkalinity, which aids in the control of acids formed during the combustion process. Most passenger car motor oils offer only 7 TBN and are formulated with detergents that quickly lose TBN value. With TBN loss, oils lose their ability to neutralize acids, prevent high-temperature deposits and inhibit rust. TBN can also be used as a measure of lubricant degradation in service; TBN loss is a primary reason oils require changing.

What It Means
Motor oils that have a high TBN and demonstrate good TBN retention are known to effectively reduce the corrosive effects of acids over an extended period.

The Cold Cranking Simulator Test determines the apparent viscosity of lubricants at low temperatures and at high shear rates. Viscosity of lubricants under these conditions is directly related to low-temperature engine cranking. The test results are used to assign SAE “W” grades. The test was performed at -22ºF (-30ºC). Results are reported in centipoise (cP). To meet the API SN and ILSAC GF-5 motor oil specifications, a motor oil’s cold crank viscosity must not exceed 6,600 cP.

What It Means
The lower a lubricant’s cold crank viscosity, the easier an engine will turn over in cold temperatures. (Oils that thicken too much in cold temperatures won’t allow engines to turn fast enough to start.)

Motor oils can form deposits when exposed to increased heat, reducing efficiency and contributing to poor overall performance. Given the number of vehicles now equipped with direct fuel injection, turbochargers and other performance-enhancing technologies that increase heat, deposit control has taken on increased importance. To meet the API SN Resource Conserving and ILSAC GF-5 motor oil specifications, a 5w30 motor oil must limit total deposit formation to 30 mg or less.

What It Means
According to the ASTM, the TEOST test method “is designed to predict the high-temperature deposit forming tendencies of an engine oil. This test method can be used to screen oil samples or as a quality assurance tool.”

Results demonstrate a range of performance differences between oils. Only Castrol Edge with Titanium Fluid Strength Technology and AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil limited total deposit weight to 5 mg or less.

The NOACK Volatility Test determines the evaporation loss of lubricants in high-temperature service. The more motor oils vaporize, the thicker and heavier they become, contributing to poor circulation, reduced fuel economy and increased oil consumption, wear and emissions. The NOACK provides a basis for estimating the approximate useful life of a lubricant.

Test Method
In the NOACK, a test specimen of oil is heated to 482°F and held at that temperature for one hour. After an hour, the remaining oil volume is weighed and compared to the original weight, with the difference reported as the percentage of weight lost. The NOACK Volatility Test was developed in Germany and has long been a specification test for European motor oils. Volatility testing became a requirement for North American motor oils in 1992, with the introduction of API SH/ILSAC GF-1 oils. Volatility standards were tightened with the 1996 introduction of API SJ/ILSAC GF-2 oils, which required a weight loss limit of 22%. Results must be limited to 15% or less to meet the current API SM/ILSAC GF-4 specifications.

What It Means
According to the ASTM, “Evaporation may contribute to oil consumption in an engine and can lead to a change in the properties of an oil.” As with the TEOST test, low values in the NOACK Volatility Test are of particular benefit in modern, hot-running engines. Lubricants with low NOACK scores are preferred; the lower the number, the better the resistance to vaporization. Low NOACK scores indicates an oil that will keep their original protective and performance qualities longer.

While all oils were below the API SN and ILSAC GF-5 upper limit, results indicate differences in high- temperature volatility. Half of the oils limited the percentage weight lost from volatility to under 10 percent, with AMSOIL Signature Series Synthetic Motor Oil having the third-best result.

REWARD EXCELLENCE!

Rate the quality of this post and help Packard reputation points. Click the reputation button near the bottom left corner of this message box. Thank you!